Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 10:20:25 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <v686rp$36kvf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me> <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me> <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me> <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me> <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org> <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me> <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org> <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me> <v62vdb$23k3e$1@dont-email.me> <v63iqn$26loi$2@dont-email.me> <v65fg3$2l9eg$1@dont-email.me> <v6655d$2oun1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 09:20:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="70c8d6b77d1510d9355906f09ac241dc";
	logging-data="3363823"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uSx7Jn8vVm1U6TMPOyHZ/"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lPBnWVuNQE7qG12EqxjvnYAm4y4=
Bytes: 7910

On 2024-07-04 12:39:09 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/4/2024 1:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-03 13:13:59 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/3/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-03 01:18:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/24 7:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be irrelevant 
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not bring the discussion any further.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your simulation is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest
>>>>>>>>>>> or clueless I no longer care which one.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist
>>>>>>>>> which calls this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process
>>>>>>>>> until aborted (which may be never).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Only if your definiton of "Correct" includes things that are not correct.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Your problem is you just assume things to exist that don't, because you 
>>>>>>>> don't understand what Truth actually means.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, where is that Diagonalization proof you said you had to show Godel wrong?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Or are you just admitting you LIED about that?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser would agree that HHH/DDD meets the above criteria*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your HHH that returns an answer does NOT "Correctly Simulate" its input 
>>>>>> by the definition of producing the exact results of executing the 
>>>>>> machine represented by it,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can see what you fail to understand. Professor Sipser would
>>>>> not make this same mistake.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Professor Sipser probably does understand the x86 language.
>>>> 
>>>> What makes you think so? How can you justify "probably" instead of, say,
>>>> "pssobly"?
>>>> 
>>>> The following contains nothing relevant:
>>>> 
>>>>> Shared-memory implementation of the Karp-Sipser
>>>>> kernelization process
>>>>> https://inria.hal.science/hal-03404798/file/hipc2021.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you make sure to not pay attention than you you
>>> won't find anything relevant. I searched for ["sipser" "x86"]
>> 
>> Finding that you present claims without support is relevant enough for me.
>> 
> 
> Knowledge of the x86 language is 100% complete support.

No, it is not. It might support your cliams a but if your writing would
reveal significant knowledge of the x86 language but it doesn't.

-- 
Mikko